Holding

The High Court was correct in holding that the land‑owner is disentitled to re‑agitate the tenant's right to purchase, and the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

Summary

The tenant, Biharlal, applied under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 to purchase 224 kanals 18 marlas of land owned by Harjinder Singh Brar. The Assistant Collector approved the purchase, but the land‑owner appealed, leading to a series of appellate and revisional orders that upheld the tenant's right to purchase while remanding the matter for price determination. Subsequent determinations of the purchase price were contested, but the Financial Commissioner ultimately restored the price for the whole land. The land‑owner later filed a writ petition challenging the tenant's right to purchase; the High Court dismissed it, and the Division Bench affirmed that dismissal. The land‑owner sought special leave to re‑agitate the issue by seeking a fresh price determination. The Supreme Court held that the tenant's right to purchase had been finally decided by the appellate and revisional authorities, and the land‑owner was therefore disentitled to relitigate the matter; the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the land‑owner can re‑agitate the tenant's right to purchase land under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 by seeking a fresh determination of the purchase price after the right has been upheld by appellate and revisional authorities.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Tenant's right of purchaseSection 18Punjab Security of Land Tenures ActRevisional jurisdictionSpecial Leave PetitionRedetermination of purchase priceLand acquisition

Judgment

\

COL. SIR HARJNDER SINGH BRAR BANS BAHADUR A
v.
BlHARl LAL AND OTHERS ETC.

MARCH 18, 1994

IK. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, J.1.J B

77ie Punjab Secwiry• of Land Tenures Act, 1953: S.18--Land in tenan·
C)-Tenant's application for purchase of-Held, 1ight of tenant to purchase
the land having been upheld by appellate and revisional arltho1itiesi landolvner
ivas disentitled to reagitate the issue in writ petition before High Cozut in guise C
of seeking redetennination of the purchase price of the land.

Respondent No. I, a tenant of the appellant-land owner in respect of
land measuring 246 Kanals, 18 Marlas, filed an application to purchase
the said land under s. 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953.
The Assistant Collector allowed the application by his order dated 4.3.1963 D
in respect of 224 Kanals, 18 Marlas. The land owner tiled an appeal before
the Collector challenging the order as regards the right of the tenant to
purchase the land as well as the purchase price payable for the land. The
Collector, by his order dated 5.7.1963 upheld the tenant's right to purchase
the land, but remanded the case to redetermine the purchase price of the E
land. Land owner's further appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner.
His review application was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner
on 9.12.1965.

The Assistant Collector, by his order dated 20.9.1968 redetermined
the purchase price only in respect of 48 Kanals, 4 Marlas of land. This F
gave rise to a second round of litigation between the parties and ultimately
both the revisions- one filed by the tenant to reduce the purchase price
and the other preferred by the land owner disputing the right of the tenant
for purchase of the whole land-were dismissed by the Financial Commis-
sioner. Against this, the land owner filed a writ petition before the High G
Court challenging the right of the tenant to purchase the land. The Single
Judge dismissed the writ petition. The intra court appeal was dismissed
by the Division Bench of the High Court. The land owner filed the Special
Leave Petition.

l)ismissing the special leave petition, this Court H
107
)

108 j l994J 3 S.C.R.

A HELD : The High Court cannot be said to have gone \\Tong in •
t:oncluding that the land-owner was disentitled to reagitate the question
relating to right of purchase of the land by the tenant in the guise of
seeking redetermination of the purchase price of land made by Ute Assis·
tant Collector on 20.9.1968, pursuant to an order of remand. The order
dated 43.1963 passed by the Assistant Collector under s. 18 of the Punjab
B Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 as regards the right of the tenant to
purchase 224 Kanals 18 Marlas of land was justly upheld by the appellate
authority and ultimately by the revisional authority, the Financial Com-
missioner, on 9.12.1965. [110-C-D; 109-H]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition
c (Civil) No. 11296 of 1992.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16-9-82 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in LP.A. No. 304/1979.

Rajinder Sachhar, S.K. Mehta, Dhruv Mehta and Aman Vachhcr for
D the Petitioner.
M.L. Verma, N.D. Garg, Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Ms. Dania Pradhan, Ms.
Laxmi Arvind and Ms. lndu Malhotra for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
VENKATACHALA, J. Bihari Lal, the first respondent in this peti-
tion was the tenant under Harinder Singh, the landowner in respect of the
land measuring 246 Kanals 18 Marlas in Ballabhgarh in Punjab State. With
the coming into force of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953
(hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), the relationship of the land-
F owner and the tenant in respect of the said land came to be regulated by
the provisions of the Act. The tenant, who was entitled to purchase the
said land under Section 18 of the Act, made an application on February 3,
1961 before the Assistant Collector of First Grade who declared by his
Order dated March 4, 1963 that the tenant was entitled to purchase 224
G Kanals 18 Marlas of the land and its purchase price was Rs. 13,789.18 and
the same was required to be paid by the tenant in four equal six monthly
instalments or in lump sum. The tenant deposited a sum of Rs. 3,447.30
which constituted the first instalment. However, that order of the Assistant
Collector was challenged by the landowner as regards both, the right of the
tenant to purchase that land and the purchase price payable for that land,
H by filing an appeal before the Collector. The Collector, by his Order dated
I,

HAIUNDERSINGH v. BIHARILAL[VENKATACHALA,J.] 109

August 5, 1963 partly allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the A
Assistant Collector as regards the tenant's right to purchase that land. The
land-owner, although challenged that appellate Order of the Collector by
filing a further appeal before the Commissioner and a revision before the
Financial Commissioner, did not succeed. The Financial Commissioner
dismissed the revision on December 9, 1965 by an Order made thereon.
B
The Assistant Collector who was required by the appellate order of
the Collector to redetermine the purchase price of that land, made an
order on September 20, 1968 determining the purchase price at a higher
rate only in respect of 48 Kanals 14 Marlas of land leaving out 176 Kanals
4 Marlas of land on his view that that land was not available with the tenant
by that date because of its acquisition in the meantime under the Land
c
Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the L.A. Act' for short). But that Order being
challenged by the tenant in an appeal filed before the Collector, the rate
of purchase price of land was reduced, however, holding that it was not
open to the Assistant Collector to confine the determination of purchase
price to 48 Kanals I 4 Marlas contrary to remand order which had become D
final and, therefore, the rate of purchase of the land determined by him
was to extend to the whole land. The tenant deposited with the Assistant
Collector a sum of Rs. 28,179.26 according to the purchase price so
determined by the Collector on March 3, 1969. When the matter was
carried in appeal by the land-owner before the Commissioner it was
E
ordered by him on August 19, 1969, that rate of purchase price as deter-
mined by the Assistant Collector on September 20, 1968 should be restored
and that rate should become applicable to the entire land of 224 acres as
held by the Collector. That order of the Commissioner was challenged by
both the tenant and land-owner in revisions filed before the Financial
Commissioner, the tenant seeking reduction in the rate of purchase price F
and the land-owner disputing the right of the tenant for purchase of the
whole land. But, the Commissioner dismissed both the revisions by his
Order dated May 22, 1973. The said Order of the Financial Commissioner
was challenged by the land-owner in Civil Writ Petition No. 3260 of 1973
filed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana as regards the right of the G
tenant to purchase the tenanted land. The learned Single Judge of the High
Court dismissed that Writ Petition by his Order dated October 12, 1979
finding, inter alia that the land-owner when had not questioned the cor-
rectness of the Order dated December 9, 1965 made by the Financial
Commissioner upholding the right to purchase the tenanted land by the
H
)

110 SUPREME COURT REI' ORTS [1994[ 3 S.C.R.

A tenant, it was not open to him to reagitate that matter on the basis of the
Order of the Assistant Collector made on September 20, 1968 pursuant to • I

remand order which had upheld the right of repurchase of the whole land
by the tenant. The said order of the learned Single Judge appealed against
by the land-owner in L.P.A. No. 394 of 1979, was dismissed by the Division
Bench of the High Court by its Order dated September 16, 1982, declining
B to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The land-owner has
filed the present Special Leave Petition·in respect of the said order of the
Division Bench of the High Court.

As becomes clear from the facts giving rise to the present S.L.P., the
C Order dated March 4, 1963 of the Assistant Collector mode under Section
18 of the Act as regards the right of the tenant to purchase 224 Kanals 18
Marlas of land was upheld by the appellate authority and ultimately by the
revisional authority, the Financial Commissioner, on December 9, 1965. If
that he so, the learned Single Judge of the High Court cannot be said to
have gone wrong in concluding that the land-owner was disentitled to
D reagitate the question relating to right of purchase of the land by the tenant
in the guise of seeking redetermination of the purchase price ofland made
by the Assistant Collector on September 20, 1968, pursuant to an order of
remand. Similarly, it cannot be said that the Division Bench of the High
Court was in any way unjustified in refusing to interfere with the order of
E the learned Single Judge. Hence, the order of the Division Bench against
which the present Special Leave petition has been filed, does not call for
interference.

We, therefore, reject the Special Leave Petition. However, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, we do not propose to make any order
F as to costs.

R.P. Petition dismissed.